politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This seems like both a big stretch and an over reaction. The sum total of your evidence is that a paper considered left leaning has recently run some articles that are more supportive of the current government, and your immediate reaction is essentially the government has taken over the paper and is using it to publish propaganda in preparation for declaring war?
Hi orclev and thanks for commenting. I get where you are coming from, it's a bit of a stretch but, unfortunately evidence of bias is scant at the best of times, especially when the organization which is accused is usually considered quite reputable.
'The sum total of your evidence is that a paper considered left leaning has recently run some articles that are more supportive of the current government' - I think its worth mentioning that this is extremely uncharacteristic considering there is an impending General Election. A left wing newspaper would usually favour Labour. The question worth asking is why a left-wing newspaper would back policies of an outgoing govt. - unless those policies WILL be continued by the new govt. IF that is true, then regardless of conservative or labour govt, we're going to see war - military recruitment and spending usually mean one thing only.
I don't think the UK will declare war, but it's possible that they might, I think it's more likely that a local issue will escalate to the point where world powers will need to react, for example Ukraine requesting NATO assistance, in which case the UK will act as part of NATO.
i guess the point that I'm trying to make is that if the government is already warming up the public to war, then the decision to go to war is already made. Let's not mistake the UK for a proper democracy!
Wouldn't it be just as likely that preparations are being made just in case? Considering how aggressive Russia has been for the last decade it's looking increasingly likely that it's a question of when not if they push things too far and involve a NATO country. It's certainly not guaranteed of course, but it's also not unlikely.
Wouldn't it be reasonable for the UK, being a NATO member, to be at least somewhat prepared should the worst happen? I don't think that's a particularly radical or right wing outlook.
If you want to get pessimistic about things you could also look the other direction at the US which unfortunately has been flirting with fascism recently. A win for Trump in this year's election has the potential to go very very badly for not just the US, but the world. We're talking potentially 1933 Germany levels of bad. Considering the UKs past experience having a little something stashed away wouldn't be the worst idea.
I still think you're reading way too much into a relatively minor thing though. There are a lot of far less extreme potential explanations. Jumping immediately to government intervention as the explanation is to ignore a lot of simpler explanations. For instance I'd consider it far more likely that someone simply paid them a lot of money to run those stories. There are plenty of large corporations only too happy to pay for media spin that benefits them. They need to even be a UK based company. Someone like Raytheon who would benefit from increased military spending could certainly consider it worth dropping a few hundred thousand in bribes to key people at the paper in the hopes of swaying the publics opinion.
Hi Orcrev,
'Wouldn’t it be just as likely that preparations are being made just in case? Considering how aggressive Russia has been for the last decade it’s looking increasingly likely that it’s a question of when not if they push things too far and involve a NATO country. It’s certainly not guaranteed of course, but it’s also not unlikely.' - I think you are correct, and regardless of whether the UK will go to war, such preparations would take place. Where we disagree is whether such preparations would be carried out in public. I would say that involving the public in any preparations would suggest that such things are already decided. Involving a traditionally anti-govt. newspaper in this planning would add extra weight that this is the case. It might not be true that the UK is planning for war but involving the public is usually one of the last stages of planning for a war whether it's starting one or anticipating one, for obvious reasons.
'Wouldn’t it be reasonable for the UK, being a NATO member, to be at least somewhat prepared should the worst happen? I don’t think that’s a particularly radical or right wing outlook.' - Again I totally agree that it would be a thing the UK would do, but to do so publicly and also to publicize the fact is in my view an indicator that they (govt.) is set on a particular course of action.
'If you want to get pessimistic about things you could also look the other direction at the US which unfortunately has been flirting with fascism recently. A win for Trump in this year’s election has the potential to go very very badly for not just the US, but the world. We’re talking potentially 1933 Germany levels of bad.' - I'd say that any country that is electing an first doctrine president is anticipating war, because the only theater in which that doctrine is always correct is in war. In peace time, compromise is usually made.
'Considering the UKs past experience having a little something stashed away wouldn’t be the worst idea.'- forgive me, I'm not familiar with what you are referring to here but please tell me.'
'I still think you’re reading way too much into a relatively minor thing though. There are a lot of far less extreme potential explanations. Jumping immediately to government intervention as the explanation is to ignore a lot of simpler explanations. For instance I’d consider it far more likely that someone simply paid them a lot of money to run those stories' - I'd personally consider the Guardian to not be an institution that could be 'bought' unless it was by the state.
'There are plenty of large corporations only too happy to pay for media spin that benefits them. They need to even be a UK based company. Someone like Raytheon who would benefit from increased military spending could certainly consider it worth dropping a few hundred thousand in bribes to key people at the paper in the hopes of swaying the publics opinion.' - Well you might be right but again I don't believe that the editors at the Guardian would compromise their journalistic integrity to do that - especially given their historical opposition to the MIC.